MICROPILES AND ITS APPLICATIONS FOR GROUND

IMPROVEMENT
Satyendra Mittal

INTRODUCTION

Soil is a cheap construction material because of its universal availability. It is

generally strong in compression and weak in tension. This drawback may be
overcome by reinforcing the soil. The reinforcement suppresses the normal tensile
strains in the soil mass through frictional interaction. Such material can have varied
application in Civil engineering construction. Reinforcement can be in form of
metallic strips, geotextiles, steel rods or grouted needle piles (soil nailing) or large
micropiles.

Reinforced earth possess many novel characteristics, which render it eminently

suitable for construction of geotechnical structures. The performance of soil can be
improved substantially by insertion of reinforcement element in a soil mass, which in
a triaxial test appears either as increased friction angle or as cohesion intercept on the
Mohr’s envelop. The load deformation response of a reinforced soil could therefore
be expected to be an improvement on the unreinforced soil. Thus, subsoil reinforced
with appropriate reinforcing unit could possibly provide a foundation bed with
increased bearing capacity and smaller settlement. The present study is proposed to
investigate these aspects, but with use of vertical reinforcing element. Verma and
Char (1986) present very interesting results establishing that vertical reinforcement
are also as effective as horizontal layered reinforcements apart from having ease of
placement in different condition.

The main advantage using vertical reinforcement is:

1. It can be used for strengthening the existing foundation.
2. It can be used for in situ condition.
3. Relaying of the subgrade is not required as in case of horizontal
reinforcement.
4. It can be installed in areas where water table is high.
5. It can be installed in subsurface obstructions or difficult ground.

It is observed that, the vertical reinforcement not only reinforces the ground but also
densify it. The ground gets reinforced at the point of installation of vertical
reinforcement. The ground surrounding the reinforcement gets densified during the
process of installation of the vertical reinforcement. The frictional force between the
soil and the micropile provides the principal load-bearing component.

In 1952, the Italian engineer Lizzi, began constructing piles with diameter smaller
than stipulated by construction codes of that time. These piles were originally called
Pali radice (Root piles); today they are usually known as minipiles or micropiles.
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

MICROPILES

Micropiles are defined as small diameter, drilled, cast-in-place, grouted piles with
high capability of sustaining high loads. The constructional drilling equipment and
methods allow micropiles to be drilled through virtually every ground conditions,
natural and artificial, with minimal vibration, disturbance and noise, at any angle
below horizontal. The main characteristics of a micropile is its small boring diameter,
which allows its construction in almost any ground condition with equipments smaller
than those used for traditional piles.

Micropiles were first installed in Italy in the 1950s and were conceived as a method to
underpin historic buildings and monuments. In the 1970s, this new techniques was
introduced in the U.S. However, rapid growth in applications did not begin until the
late 1980s when the method gained acceptance as a mean to underpin existing
structures. Micropiles can be used under restricted access conditions, and they can
provide not only an excellent structural support but also a system that minimizes
settlements. Furthermore, micropiles can be constructed practically under every
ground condition with minimal disturbance of the structure being underpinned. The
following are the various applications of micropile.

For structural support:

1. Foundation for new structures

2. Seismic retrofitting
3. Underpinning of existing foundation
4. Repair / replacement of existing foundation
5. Arresting / prevention of movement
6. Upgrading of foundation capacity

196
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

For in situ reinforcement:

1. Embankment, slope and landslide stabilization
2. Soil strengthening and protection
3. Settlement reduction
4. Structural stability

A main advantage when using micropiles for underpinning is that the system can be
designed to have low settlements. It is common for these piles to develop settlements
on the order of a few millimeters or less under working loads.

REINFORCING MECHANISM

The ground improvement techniques are sufficiently well developed to transform a

weak soil into strata of desired strength and compressibility.

The design parameter of reinforced soil is a function of the mechanism of interaction

between soil and the intrusion. This interaction can be realized either by friction or by
active thrust and a passive soil reaction, or by combination of both. It is well known
that lateral stress increases the frictional component of soil shearing strength, as is
readily demonstrated in laboratory triaxial shear tests. The lateral stress also increases
the vertical stiffness modulus, as also demonstrated in triaxial tests. In case of driven
piles, high lateral stresses are developed close to driven piles (Handy et al., 1990). A
simultaneous increase in radial stress and reduction in tangential stress encourages
shearing and development of a passive condition.

A simple model illustrating the effect of lateral confinement in soil is shown in Fig.1
(Handy, 2001), where top diagram shows shear directions and contact friction in a
normally consolidated soil. Here friction acts in support of the higher vertical load.
With the application of horizontal stress shear directions are reversed, and as shown in
middle diagram contact friction acts to oppose the increased horizontal stress. In the
bottom when a foundation load is applied, shear direction again are reversed, and as in
case of the normally consolidated soil, consolidation can begin only when the vertical
stress is sufficient to overcome the frictional resistance.

The vertical reinforcing element resists the lateral displacement of soil underneath the
footing and creates the sand confinement situation. From Fig.2 it is anticipated that
the plastic region of soil is limited by the plane of velocity discontinuity abc and the
plane of reinforcement cd. This plastic situation is smaller than that in similar
situation without reinforcement. Thus, a smaller vertical displacement of a footing
resting on reinforced soil is expected compared with a similar case but with
unreinforced soil. The lateral passive resistance of soil developed along the top part
(cd) of the reinforcing elements confined the plastic flow of soil within the region
abcd, i.e the reinforcing elements create some sort of lateral confinement (Mahmoud
and Abdrabbo, 1989).

It can be concluded that high lateral stress can differ consolidation settlement to a
substantially higher foundation load, without any influence from densification of the
soil and without necessarily increasing the pore water pressure. It should be

197
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

emphasized that the vertical reinforcement factor is fully developed only in soil that
has been horizontally stressed to the passive limit, as where the reinforcing element
are closely spaced in lines on in groups.

DEVELOPMENT IN REINFORCED EARTH SLAB

The beneficial effect of using vertical reinforcement to increase bearing capacity of

soil has been clearly demonstrated by several investigators.

Verma and Char (1986) investigated the efficiency of the vertical reinforcing
elements in improving sand subgrade. Extent, spacing and flexibility of the
reinforcing elements are considered to be the variables in this investigation. Two
dimensional model tests are carried out using a 720 x 400 x 90mm box. Galvanized
iron rods of diameter 1.7mm and 2.51mm coated with one layer of sand particles of
length B, 1.5B and 2B ( B=width of footing) were pushed into the sand bad vertically.
The galvanized rods were inserted for different extent of B, 2B and 3B and at
different spacing of 18mm, 15mm, 13mm and 10mm.

Fig. 1 Increase in the allowable vertical stress before consolidation can initiate
due to impose of high lateral stress (Handy, 2001)

198
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

Fig. 2 Anticipated failure surface for vertical

confinement (Mahmoud and Abdrabbo, 1989)

The improvement in bearing capacity compares with the results obtained using
horizontal form of reinforcement. The bearing capacity is a function of diameter and
roughness of reinforcement. While for a given type of reinforcement used, bearing
capacity increases with increasing density of reinforcement. It was observed that
reinforcement with depth one and half time the width of footing and for the extent of
twice the width of footing on either side, with spacing six times diameter can be used
to derive substantial improvement.

Mahmoud and Abdrabbo (1989) investigated the performance of strip footing

resting on vertically reinforced sand subgrade. Model tests were conducted on steel
tank of 520mm x 520mm X 500mm (depth).The size of strip footing was 50mm x
500mm x 25.4mm resting on sand bed having relative density 92%. The reinforcing
elements were made of aluminium strips of 2mm thickness and 20mm width. Two
rows of reinforcing element were placed symmetrically adjacent to the footing with
one row on each side. It was recommended to use two rows of nonextensible
reinforcing elements, on each side of the footing, driven vertically with sufficient
length, as close as possible to the footing. The most economic length of vertical
reinforcement was found to be 3B and 2B below the base of the footing in cases of
x/B=1 and x/B=2.5 (x= distance of reinforcement from centre of footing and B=
width of footing) respectively. The bearing capacity ratio decreases with increasing
reinforcement inclination to the vertical.

Verma and Jha (1992) investigated three dimensional model footing resting on the
sand subgrade reinforced with vertical reinforcement on all four sides of the footing
base. Galvanized iron rods of 1.7mm diameter of length 1.5B was pushed into sand
subgrade at spacing of 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 10 ( = diameter of the reinforcement).
The reinforcements were inserted at multiple numbers of rows till the different extent
of 0.25B, 0.5B, B, 1.5B and 2B at specified spacing. If the subgrade was
reinforcement was reinforced upto extent of twice the width of footing with
reinforcing rods of length one and half times the footing width and at a spacing of

199
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

four times the reinforcing rods, maximum improvement was obtained. Bearing
capacity improvement increases more than 100%.

Mandal and Manjunath (1995) investigated the possibility of increasing the bearing
capacity of soil using a vertical geogrid and bamboo sticks as foundation reinforcing
element. Two dimensional model tests were carried out in a steel tank measuring
610mm x 102mm x 460mm (depth). The tank was filled by Mumbai sand at 73%
relative density. The reinforcing elements were made of Nelton geogrid strips 3mm
thick and 100mm wide and bamboo sticks 6mm diameter. Two row of reinforcing
elements are placed symmetrically adjacent to the footing with one row on each side
at different ratio of horizontal distance between the reinforcing element and centre of
footing and width of footing (X/B). The spacing between the bamboo sticks was equal
to 25.4mm. The vertical reinforcing element placed on each side of the footing was
found to increase the bearing capacity of the footing. At distance of 0.5B from the
centre of the footing the load displacement behaviour of the footing modified
significantly and occurrence of general shear failure. The vertical reinforcement is
more effective than either outwardly or inwardly inclined reinforcement.

Harikrishna and Ramana Murty (2000) investigated the effect of vertical and
inclined GI strips driven in sand bed outside the footing to determine the optimum
location and orientation of reinforcement to improve the bearing capacity. Here GI
strips of 0.025m wide and 0.375m long were used. The length of strips was kept equal
to 2.5 times the width of footing. Reinforcement placed at 1.0B from the centre of the
footing and oriented 75o with the horizontal yields maximum ultimate bearing
capacity. The effect of reinforcement beyond 2.0B distance away from the footing
was negligible. Settlement reduction was maximum for reinforcement at 2B away
from the footing and oriented at 90o.

Murthy Srinivasa et al. (2002) investigated the improvement of the of load-

deformation response in sands due to densification of the soil surrounding the
micropiles and interaction between the soil and micropiles. Micropiles were inserted
under the footing in sand (loose and dense condition) at different inclinations
corresponding to 1:2, 1:1 and 2:1 angles (referred to as angles 26o, 45o and 63o) with
respect to the horizontal at the centre of footing. The total improvement as a result of
driving the micropile was of the order of 26.5%, 29.9% and 33.1% for the same
inclinations in loose sand and 46.7%, 39.4% and 40.7% in dense sand.

Babu Sivakumar et al. (2004) investigated use of the micropile in many applications
of ground improvement to increase the bearing capacity and to reduce the settlements
particularly in strengthening the existing foundation by using 2D finite element
method. A two storied residential building in a metropolitan city in India was
subjected to differential settlement due to error in calculation of the bearing capacity.
As a result plinth beam and tie beams in the middle at the middle level showed
considerable distress in the form of cracks. The 100mm diameter micropiles at
200mm c/c were used to improve the footing. The bearing pressure was improved
from 66.8 kPa before installation of micropile to 106.3 kPa after the installation of
micropile.

200
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

Bahloul et al. (2004) studied the ability of using vertical reinforcement to increase the
bearing capacity of the subgrade layer under shallow strip footing under axial load.
Load tests on model footing were conducted in laboratory to investigate the effect of
the length and location of the reinforcement and to find the appropriate location and
depth suitable for installing the reinforcing element. A numerical study using plain
strain finite element was carried out to verify the model test results. The agreement
between observed and computed results is found to be reasonably good in term of
load settlement behaviour. The result indicates that the bearing capacity of strip
footings on vertically reinforced subgrade can be increased by 220%.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

1. The bearing capacity increment of the reinforced soil with vertical

reinforcement such as micropile depends upon the spacing between the pile,
extent of placement of reinforcement at specified spacing and length of pile.
2. The bearing capacity can be improved by different types of vertical
reinforcement such as steel sheet, bamboo, geogrid etc. Here reinforcement is
placed in single row on both sides of the footing.
3. The bearing capacity improvement depends upon the length of reinforcement
and distance of the reinforcement from the footing.
4. The bearing capacity improvement is more for vertical reinforcement than
inclined reinforcement. This because the vertical component of the frictional
stresses developed along the reinforcing element decrease as the inclination
angle increases. Also, the confinement region of soil beneath the footing
decreases as the inclination angle of reinforcing elements increases, which
leads in decrease in bearing capacity.

It is also observed that there is no paper available on the behaviour of eccentrically

loaded footing with vertical reinforcement. Hence this problem has been chosen in the
present study.In the present research program it was planned to study the bearing
capacity, settlement and tilt characteristics of square footing subjected to one way
eccentric load with micropile as insitu vertical reinforcement. For this three
dimensional tests on a 150mm x 150mm size footing with micropile inserted at the
side of the footing were performed for central vertical load and also for eccentricity of
0.1B and 0.2B (B is width of footing) along one axis of the footing. Tests are planned
for three different diameters of micropile (3mm, 6mm and 10mm).
The tank size was 1100mm x 1100mm x 500mm depth. The tests were conducted by
varying the length of micropile, distance of micropile from the edge of footing and
spacing between the micropiles. The results obtained from model tests have been
verified by carrying out numerical studies using finite difference method using FLAC.

STUDY CONDUCTED BY BHATTACHARYA & MITTAL (2006)

Bhattacharya, A. and Mittal, Satyendra in their study conducted three dimensional

model tests to study the effect of eccentrically loaded footings with micropile as
vertical insitu reinforcement. The effect of the diameter of the pile, length of the pile,
spacing between the piles and distance of pile from footing on the bearing capacity,
settlement and tilt has been studied. The salient points of their study are as follows :

201
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

Test Arrangements

Three dimensional model tests were carried out using 1015mm x 1015mm x 500 mm
tank. The applied load was recorded with the help of calibrated proving ring.
Settlement was recorded by dial gauges. The model footing was a square footing
150mm x 150mm size and 10mm thick. The base of the footing was made rough, to
simulate the roughness of actual footing. The details of test set up are given in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Test Set up

The soil used in the study was Solani sand collected locally from Solani river
bed. For each test a homogeneous bed of dry sand was formed. The property of sand
used for tests is given in Table 1.

Table.1 Properties of soil used in investigation

Sl Characteristics Value
No.
1 Soil type/ classification SP
2 Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 1.818
3 Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.11
4 Specific gravity of solids (Gs) at 27oC 2.58
5 Minimum void ratio (emin) 0.50
6 Maximum void ratio (emax) 0.906
7 Average density under test condition ( d) 16.1 kN/m3
8 Relative density under test condition (DR) 75%
9 Angle of shearing resistance by triaxial test 380
14 Modulus of elasticity for test condition 23.08 MPa
15 Poisson’s ratio 0.3
16 Bulk modulus for test condition 19.23 MPa
17 Shear modulus for test condition 8.87 MPa

202
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

For reinforcement purpose iron rod of average diameter 3mm, 6mm and 10mm were
used. The surface of this rod was coated with fevicol and sand mixture to simulate a
rough surface of the concrete micropile. The reinforcement was placed in single row
at the side of footing at different distances from the edge of the footing. The
reinforcement was inserted vertically with certain specified load to maintain
uniformity. The arrangement of micropiles are shown in Fig. 4.

The non-dimensional parameters were varied to evaluate the following effects:

1. The ratio of the diameter of the micropile to the width of footing (d/B).
2. The ratio of the length of the micropile to the width of footing (L/B).
3. The ratio of the horizontal distance between the micropile and the edge of
footing to the width of footing (x/B).
4. The ratio of spacing between the micropiles to the width of footing (s/B).

B X

Footing L
Micropile

Cross-section of reinforced footing

Footing

Plan
Fig. 4 The arrangements of micropiles

The results were presented in the form of bearing capacity ratio, BCR = q/qo
Where
q= ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil.
qo= ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced soil.

The settlement ratio, SR for a particular bearing pressure is defined as

SR = S/So
Where,
S = settlement of footing on reinforced soil at a particular bearing pressure.
So = settlement of footing on unreinforced soil at that bearing pressure.

203
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

Numerical Simulation

The results obtained from the model tests were verified by carrying out numerical
studies using finite difference method. The three dimensional finite difference
analysis was carried out using the commercial software FLAC 3D (Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua). In this study the dimension of model is kept same as that of
model tests of laboratory. The sand was modeled using elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb
model. The basic parameters required for Mohr-Coulomb model are listed below:

K= Bulk Modulus of soil, G=Shear modulus of soil, = Angle of internal friction.

The micropile was modeled as pile element, which are two dimensional elements with
three degree of freedom (two displacements and one rotation) at each node. Piles
interact with the FLAC grid via shear and normal couple springs.

Numerical Procedure

a) Unreinforced sand

A 15cm x 15cm square footing was considered for the analysis. The soil mass
considered was 100cm x 100cm x 50cm (depth). Considering the symmetry of the
problem only one fourth of the whole mass was taken into consideration (Fig.5). In
the numerical example, the footing was square and represented by an area with half-
width i.e. 7.5cm. The displacements of the far x-, y- and z-boundaries were restricted
in all directions, and the displacements of the symmetry boundaries corresponding to
the planes at x = 0 and y = 0 are restricted in the x- and y-directions respectively
(Fig.6). The footing was rough, so displacements were fixed in the x- and y-directions;
and a velocity of 0.5 x 10-3 cm/step was applied in the positive z-direction to grid
points within a 7.5cm x 7.5cm area to simulate loading on the footing. The complete
soil mass was divided into number zones with finer mesh at vicinity of the footing and
coarser mesh away from footing. The property of Solani sand is assigned to all zones.

b) Reinforced sand

The soil was simulated in the similar manner as that of unreinforced condition. After
soil was properly modeled, the micropile was inserted into soil. Due to insertion of the
micropile surrounding soil was densified. While simulating the micropile, the soil
surrounding the micropile was considered to get densified upto 3.5 times the pile
diameter (Kerisel, 1961) and (Kishida and Meyerhof, 1966).

Tests Results And Interpretation

The load settlement curves for unreinforced sand determined from the laboratory tests
and numerical model are shown in Fig.7.

204
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

7.5cm

50 cm

50cm

50cm

Fig. 5 Domain for FLAC 3D analysis – quarter symmetry

Fig.6 Boundary condition – quarter symmetry

205
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

e/B=0(Test)
Pressure (kN/sqm)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 e/B=0(Numerical
model)
5

10
Settlement (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

Fig.7 Pressure versus settlement curves for unreinforced Solani sand

Tests and numerical simulations are conducted for footing with micropile as insitu
reinforcement. The curves (Fig.8 and Fig.9) are drawn for different distance of
micropile from edge of footing to width of footing (x/B) ratio and spacing between
micropiles to width of footing (s/B) ratio. Here ratio of diameter of micropile to width
of footing (d/B) and ratio of length of micropile to width of footing is kept as 0.067
and 3 respectively.

Unreinforced
Pressure (kN/sqm) x/B=0.1 s/B=0.25
0 100 200 300 400 500 x/B=0.1 s/B=0.5
0 x/B=0.5 s/B=0.25
5
x/B=0.5 s/B=0.5
10
Settlement (mm)

x/B=1.0 s/B=0.25
15
x/B=1.0 s/B=0.5
20
25
30
35
40

Fig.8 Pressure-settlement curve for d/B=0.067 and L/B=3(Test)

206
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

Unreinforced
Pressure (kN/sqm) x/B=0.1, s/B=0.25
0 200 400 600 x/B=0.1, s/B=0.5
0 x/B=0.5, s/B=0.25
5 x/B=0.5, s/B=0.5
Settlement (mm)

10 x/B=1.0, s/B=0.25
15 x/B=1.0,s/B=0.5
20
25
30
35

Fig.9 Pressure-settlement curve for d/B=0.067 and L/B=3 (Numerical

model)

By comparing curves it is evident the settlement also decreases with the decrease in
spacing between the micropiles, as well as decrease in distance of micropile from the
edge of footing.

Influence of diameter of micropile

Fig.10 shows the plot between diameter of micropile to width of footing (d/B) ratio
and BCR for ratio of length of micropile to width of footing L/B=3,2 and 1. It is
observed from the plot that the BCR increases with the increase in diameter of
micropile. Fig.11 shows the plot between ratio of diameter of micropile to width of
footing (d/B) and SR for length of micropile to width of footing L/B=3,2 and 1. It is
observed from the plot that the SR decreases with the increase in diameter of
micropile. It is because with the increase in micropile diameter, its stiffness and
resistance to lateral movement of soil under the footing increases, and hence bearing
capacity improves and settlement decreases. Also for same number of micropiles in a
row, increasing the diameter of micropile decreases the clear distance between the
piles. Therefore, less soil migrates through the window between the micropiles, and
increase in bearing capacity and decrease in settlement.

207
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

L/B=3 (Test)
2.2

2
L/B=2 (Test)
1.8
L/B=1 (Test)
BCR
1.6

1.4 L/B=3 (Numerical

modeling)
1.2
L/B=2 (Numerical
1 modeling)
0.015 0.035 0.055 0.075
L/B=1 (Numerical
d/B
modeling)

Fig. 10 BCR vs. d/B curve for e/B=0, x/B=0.1, s/B=0.5

L/B=3 (Test)
0.8
0.75 L/B=2 (Test)
0.7
Settlement ratio

0.65
L/B=1 (Test)

0.6 L/B=3 (Numerical

0.55 modeling)
0.5 L/B=2 (Numerical
0.45
modeling)
L/B=1 (Numerical
0.4
modeling)
0.015 0.035 0.055 0.075
d/B

Fig. 11 SR vs. d/B curve for e/B=0.0, x/B=0.1, s/B=0.25

Bearing Pressure =150 kN/sqm
Influence of distance of micropile from edge of footing

The plot between BCR and ratio of distance of micropile from edge of footing to
width of footing (x/B) for different spacing of micropile to width of footing ratio
s/B=0.5 and 0.25 are shown in Fig.12. It is observed from the graph that BCR
decreases with the increase in distance of micropile from edge of footing. Fig.13
shows the plot between SR and distance of micropile from edge of footing to width of
footing ratio (x/B) for different spacing of micropile to width of footing ratio
s/B=0.5 and 0.25. It is observed from the graph that SR increases with the increase in
distance of micropile from edge of footing. It is because when the micropiles are near
to the footing it gives better confinement to the soil underneath the footing, so the
lateral soil movement is much less and bearing capacity improves and settlement
decreases.

208
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

s/B=0.5 (Test)
2.3 s/B=0.25 (Test)
2.1
s/B=0.5 (Numerical model)
1.9
s/B=0.25 (Numerical
BCR

1.7 model)

1.5

1.3

1.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
x/B

100 kN/sqm (Test)

1.1 Fig. 12 BCR vs. x/B curve for e/B=0, d/B=0.067, L/B=3
1 150 kN/sqm (Test)
0.9
Settlement ratio

0.8 200kN/sqm (Test)

0.7
100 kN/sqm
0.6 (Numerical model)
0.5 150 kN/sqm
0.4 (Numerical model)
0.3 200 kN/sqm
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (Numerical model)

x/B

Fig.13 SR vs. x/B for e/B=0, d/B=0.067, s/B=0.25 and L/B=3

Influence of spacing between the micropiles

The plot between BCR and ratio of distance of micropile from edge of footing to
width of footing (x/B) for different spacing of micropile to width of footing ratio
s/B=0.5 and 0.25 are shown in Fig.14. It is observed from the plot that BCR decreases
with the increase in spacing between the micropiles.

209
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

d/B=0.02(Test)
0.85
0.8
0.75 d/B=0.04(Test)

Settlement ratio
0.7
0.65 d/B=0.067(Test)
0.6
0.55 d/B=0.02(Numerical
0.5 method)
0.45 d/B=0.04(Numerical
0.4 model)
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 d/B=0.067(Numeric
s/B al model)

Fig. 14 SR vs. s/B for e/B=0, L/B=3 and Bearing Pressure =150kN/sqm

The plot between settlement ratio and ratio of spacing between micropile to width of
footing (s/B) for different diameter of micropile to width of footing ratio
d/B=0.02,0.04 and 0.067 is shown in Fig.14. It is observed from the plot that SR
increases with the increase in spacing between the micropiles. This is because when
the micropile spacing is increased, the clear distance between micropiles decreases
allowing less soil to migrate between micropiles and lesser lateral movement of soil
occur under the footing, leading to increase in the footing bearing capacity and
decrease in settlement of footing.

Influence of length of micropile

The plot between BCR and distance of micropile from edge of footing to width of
footing (x/B) for different length of micropile to width of footing L/B=3, 2 and 1 is
shown in Fig.15. It is observed from the plots that the BCR decreases with decrease in
length of micropile. But the value bearing capacity for smallest length is more than
bearing capacity of unreinforced sand. The plot between settlement ratio (SR) and
length of micropile to width of footing (L/B) for different of micropile to width of
footing d/B=0.02,0.04 and 0.067 are shown in Fig.16. It is observed from the plots
that the settlement ratio decreases with increase in length of micropile. It is because of
the effect of confinement due to micropile insertion. For longer micropile, the bearing
capacity improvement is more. Because with the increase in embedded part of
micropile in underlying soil beyond influence depth of footing gives the more stability
of pile and greater resistance to lateral movement.

210
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

L/B=3 (Test)
2.3
L/B=2(Test)
2.1
L/B=1(Test)
1.9
L/B=3(Numerical
BCR

1.7 model)
L/B=2(Numerical
1.5 model)
L/B=1(Numerical
1.3 model)

1.1
0.05 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.05
x/B

Fig. 15 BCR vs. x/B curve for e/B=0.0, d/B=0.067, s/B=0.25

d/B=0.02(Test)
0.8
0.75
0.7 d/B=0.04(Test)
Settlement Ratio

0.65
0.6 d/B=0.067(Test)
0.55
0.5 d/B=0.02(Numerical
0.45 model)
0.4
d/B=0.04(Numerical
0.35
model)
0.3
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
d/B=0.067(Numeric
al model)
L/B

Fig. 16 SR vs. L/B for e/B=0, s/B=0.25, x/B=0.1 and

Bearing Pressure =150kN/sqm

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the experimental programme and numerical simulation carried out in the
present research programme the following conclusion can be drawn.

1. When the micropiles are driven vertically the soil surrounding the micropiles
gets compacted, thereby increasing the bearing capacity and reduction in
settlements.
2. The load displacement as well as load tilt behaviour of the footing is modified
considerably with insertion of micropiles.
3. The bearing capacity decreases with increasing distance between the edge of
footing and micropile as well as increase in spacing between the micropiles.
The best location of the reinforcement is as closed to the footing as possible.
4. The bearing capacity increases with increase in diameter of micropile for all
spacing and distance of micropile from edge of footing.

211
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

5. The bearing capacity increases with the increase in length of micropile. The
bearing capacity improvement is maximum when the length of micropile is
three times the width of footing.
6. The settlement increases with increasing spacing between the micropiles and
distance of micropile from the edge of footing.
7. The settlement decreases with increase in diameter of micropile for all spacing
between micropiles and distance of micropile from edge of footing.
8. The settlement decreases with increase in length of micropile. The settlement
is the least when the length of micropile is three times the width of footing.

BEARING CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT USING MICROPILES - A CASE

STUDY (After Srinivas Murthy et al.)

A two storeyed building rectangular in plan was constructed on a (loose sandy soil)
filled up soil in a metropolitan city in India. The investigations revealed that the
foundation soil is in relatively loose state (SPT values in the range of 6 to 8) and the
results obtained from the laboratory tests indicated that the soil properties (effective
stress parameters) viz., cohesion and friction angle can be taken as c = 0 and = 25°
respectively and the bulk density ( b) is in the range of 17 kN/m3. The foundations
were designed to carry expected column load of 600 kN, considering that the safe
bearing pressure of the soil is 120 kN/m2. Accordingly individual column footings of
size 2.5 m × 2.0 m were proposed. Above the foundation level, compacted soil (bulk
density in the range of 20 kN/m3) was placed upto a height of 6.5 m to make up for
the difference in level, which resulted in a further loading of 130 kN/m2 on the
foundation. This aspect was not considered in the original design and as a result,
plinth beam (at the foundation level) and tie beams at the middle level showed
considerable distress in the form of cracks when the filling was nearing completion.
Foundations supporting columns tilted out of line and further construction was
difficult. Later on soil investigation showed that the safe bearing pressure considered
originally in the design is higher and its actual value is around 70 kN/m2. It became
necessary to restore the foundations and columns and hence micropiling has been
chosen to strengthen the soil beneath the foundation. The treatment brought back the
total foundation system to original requirements and was considered satisfactory. Fig.
17 (a) shows the support system for retaining the soil outside the plinth beam and Fig.
17 (b) shows the removal of the filled up soil before undertaking micropiling. Fig. 17
(c) shows the micropiling in progress. The micropiling is done using a simple
hammering system in which a mass of 2.6 kN falls through a guide over a height of
1.5 m.

212
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

FIG. 17. (a) Stage of construction at the time of micropiling;

(b) Excavation of soil before implementing micropiling technique;
(c) Micropiling at the site

ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

To design the micropile configuration to strengthen the foundation system the

load on the footing from columns and filling are calculated and the required frictional
resistance of the micropile system is evaluated. The calculations for a footing (2.5 m ×
2.0 m) are as follows.

The total load coming on the system = column load +fill load
= 600 kN + 20 kN/m3 × 6.5 m × 2.5 m × 2.0 m =1250 kN.
Required safe bearing pressure = 1250/2.5 × 2 = 250 kPa
Safe load on the foundation system = 70 kPa ×2.5 m ×2 m = 350 kN
Additional load for which the micropile system is designed = 1250 - 350
= 900 kN

The additional required frictional resistance of 900 kN from the micropile

system is derived based on considering an element of soil at the micropile-soil
interface and integrating the element resistance over the entire length of micropile.

213
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

The vertical component of the frictional resistance at the interface opposes the applied
load on the footing. The frictional resistance offered by each micropile (of 4 m length
and 100 mm diameter) is obtained from the component of earth pressure parallel to
the axis of the pile. The additional resistance required to be carried by micropiles is
calculated and the number of micropiles are arrived at based on the contribution of
each micropile. The calculations indicate that 100 mm diameter micropiles spaced
200 mm c/c provide the frictional resistance required for desired level of bearing
capacity improvement. Foundation treatment consisted of driving the micropiles at an
angle of 70° with the horizontal and close to the foundation as shown in Fig. 17 (c).
Plan and section of the structure and a schematic diagram of micropile system are
shown in Figure 18. The remedial measures were implemented and the foundation has
been retrofitted to the original requirements. While the solution that was suggested
above was satisfactory in terms of immediate action of retrofitting, the case study also
provided a good opportunity to examine the performance in terms of numerical
analysis. Detailed finite element analysis has been conducted using PLAXIS to
examine the above case study in terms of its overall performance.

FIG. 18 . Plan and cross sectional view of footing strengthened by micropile

system

214
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

GEOMETRY MODEL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

PLAXIS is a 2-D finite element program, specially developed keeping in view

geotechnical considerations. In the analysis, the footing is taken as beam element and
assumed to behave as flexible and full footing of width 2.5 m is analysed as plane
strain problem. Boundary effects are avoided, by keeping the ratio of mesh size to
dimensions of footing at 12. Standard boundary conditions (viz., imposing horizontal
as well as vertical fixity to all nodes at bottom of mesh, and arresting horizontal
movement of all nodes at both sides of mesh) are applied. The foundation soil was
modeled as Mohr-Coulomb material and the micropile is modeled as elastic material.
The properties used for the materials are given in Table 2. Micropiles (mild steel
pipes with closed ends) of 100 mm diameter and 6 mm thick, spaced uniformly in the
third direction are considered for the analysis. Reducing 3D problems with regularly
spaced piles to 2D problems involves averaging the effect in 3D over the distance
between the elements. Donovan et al. (1984) suggests linear scaling of material
properties as a simple and convenient way of distributing the discrete effect of
elements over the distance between elements in a regularly spaced pattern. Similar
approach was used by Tan et al. (2000) to examine nail-soil interaction behaviour.
This approach was used in the present study. Since the micropiles were closely spaced
at a distance of twice the diameter of the pile, it was assumed that densification of the
soil surrounding the piles and the corresponding group effect is significant. Fig. 19
shows the finite element mesh along with the boundary conditions.
TABLE 2. Models and material properties used in the analysis

FIG. 19 . Finite element mesh with boundary conditions

215
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 20 shows the load displacement response obtained from numerical simulations.
Curve 1 is the load displacement curve obtained for the in-situ soil. The allowable
bearing pressure corresponding to 25 mm is 66.8 kPa and is close to the allowable
bearing pressure of 70 kPa considered in the revised design. Corresponding to 50 mm,
the allowable bearing pressure is 106.3 kPa. Curve 2 is the load displacement curve
obtained corresponding to micropiles. The curve includes the densification effect,
with properties of the sand in dense state indicated in Table 1 for the analysis. Curve 2
shows the overall improvement in bearing capacity obtained. A value of 260 kPa is
obtained. Hence the numerical results obtained in the present study validate the
ground improvement adopted in the field using micropiles.

The results confirm that the methodology used was effective in obtaining the desired
level of improvement.

FIG. 20. Load-settlement curves with and without micropiling

REFERENCES

1. Babu Sivakumar, G.L., Murthy Srinivasa, B.R., Murthy, D.S.N and Nataraj,
M.S. (2004), “Bearing Capacity improvement Using Micropiles A Case
Study”, Geosupport 2004, pp.692-699.
2. Bahloul, M.M., EL Shanawany, M.D., Azzam, W.R. (2004), “ Strengthening
of Loaded Soil System by Vertical Extensible Reinforcement”, 5th

216
 Workshop on
Ground Improvement Techniques
th th
6 to 8 September 2006
IGS, Delhi Chapter & CSMRS, New Delhi

International Conference on Ground Improvement Techniques: 22-23 March

2004, K. Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 109-118
3. Binquet, J. and Lee, K.L. (1975), “Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced
Earth Slabs”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101,
No. GT12, pp. 1241-1255.
4. Brown, B.S. and Poulos, H.G. (1981), “Analysis of Foundation on reinforced
Soil”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, pp.595-598.
5. Bruce, D.A., (1989), “American Development in the use of Small Diameter
Inserts as piles and Insitu Reinforcement”, Proceedings International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundation, London, Vol. 1, pp. 11-22.
6. Bruce, D.A., DiMillio, A.F. and Juran, I. (1995), “Primer on Micropiles”, Civil
Engineering, Vol.65, No. 12, December, pp. 51-54.
7. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (2003), Reference manuals I, II, III and
IV, Itasca consulting Group, Inc., Minnesota.
8. Handy, R.L (2001), “ Does Lateral Stress Really Influence Settlement?”,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
127, No. 7, pp. 623-626.
9. Kishida, H. and Meyerhof, C.G. (1965), “Bearing Capacity of Pile Groups
under Eccentric Loads in Sand”, Proceedings VI International Conferrence on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Montrieal), Canada, Vol.2,
pp.270.
10. Mahmoud, M.A. and Abdrabbo, F.M. (1989), “Bearing Capacity tests on Strip
Footing Resting on Reinforced Sand Subgrade”, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 26, No.1, pp. 154-159.
11. Mascardi, C.A. (1982), “Design Criteria and performance of Micropiles”,
Proceedings Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement, AIT, Bangkok,
Nov.29 – Dec.3. pp. 439-450.
12. Mittal, Satyendra & Bhattacharjee, Arup (2006), “ Bearing capacity
improvement using micropiles”, Indian Geotechnical journal (Communicated)
13. Murthy Srinivasa, B.R., Babu Sivakumar, G.L. and Srinivas, A. (2002),
“Analysis of Bearing Capacity Improvement using Micropiles”, Ground
Improvement, Vol.6, No.3, pp.121-128.
14. Verma, B.P, and Char, A.N.R. (1986), “Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced
Sand Subgrades”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 7, pp.
701-706.
15. Verma, B.P. and Jha, J.N. (1992), “ Three Dimensional Model Footing Tests
for Improving Sub-grades Below Existing Footings”, Proceedings of
International Symposium on Theory and Prctice of Earth Reinforcement
,Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 707-711.

217